The Journal of Psychology, 2013, 147(5), 491–515

Copyright 
C 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Psychological Contract Types

as Moderator in the Breach-Violation
and Violation-Burnout Relationships

AMBER JAMIL
International Islamic University Islamabad

USMAN RAJA
Brock University

WENDY DARR
Department of National Defence, Canada

ABSTRACT. This research examined the relationships between perceived psychological

contract breach, felt violation, and burnout in a sample (n = 361) of employees from vari-
ous organizations in Pakistan. The moderating role of contract types in these relationships
was also tested. Findings supported a positive association between perceived psychological
contract breach and felt violation and both were positively related to burnout. Transactional
and relational contracts moderated the felt violation-burnout relationship. Scores on rela-
tional contract type tended to be higher than for transactional contract type showing some
contextual influence.
Keywords: psychological contract breach, violation, burnout, psychological contract types

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS, which refer to the perceptions of mutual

obligations of an employee in an employment exchange relationship (Rousseau,
1989, 1995), have received considerable theoretical and empirical attention of re-
searchers over the past two decades. Generally speaking, when organizations fail
to keep one or more of their promises as depicted in one’s psychological contract,
it causes perceived breach, which in turn leads to feelings of anger, mistrust, and
betrayal labeled violation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Literature suggests that
both perceived breach and felt violation are linked to harmful consequences such
as dissatisfaction, reduced commitment, stress, emotional distress, and reduced

Address correspondence to Amber Jamil, Sector H-10, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan;

amber.jamil@iiu.edu.pk (e-mail).

491
492 The Journal of Psychology

performance (e.g., Bunderson, 2001; Conway & Briner, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro &
Kessler, 2000; Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino,
2002; McLean-Parks & Kidder, 1994; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Bulk of
the research has either used the terms interchangeably in relation to outcomes or
focused on one of these constructs in relation to outcomes. Examinations of the
relationship between these two conceptually distinct constructs are relatively rare
(Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Henderson, & Wayne, 2008). Antecedents of perceived
breach and felt violation include employee personality, contract types, perceived
organizational politics, perceived justice, perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; DelCampo, 2007; Du-
lac et al., 2008; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy,
2009; Raja et al., 2004).
Burnout is an important work related outcome, which is defined as emotional,
mental, and physical exhaustion (Pines & Aronson, 1988) stemming from work-
place stressors. According to researchers burnout occurs when an employee has
too few positive and too many negative features in one’s work environment (Kan-
ner, Kafry, & Pines, 1978). It is important to understand the source of burnout and
to deal with this problem because burnout can be potentially costly and damaging
due to its consequences (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Past research clearly indi-
cates that although job stress, strain, and burnout are strongly positively correlated,
they are conceptually and empirically distinct constructs (Maslach, 1993; Maslach
& Leiter, 2008). Moreover, burnout has largely been treated as an outcome of ex-
posure to chronic stress at work (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Jamal & Baba, 2000;
Maslach, 1993; Maslach & Leiter, 2008).
Although burnout has become a construct of central importance in the Organi-
zational Behavior (OB) literature, with a few exceptions (Cantisano, Dominguez,
& Garcia, 2007; Chambel & Oliveira-Cruz, 2010), there has been little empirical
inquiry into the relationship between perceived breach, felt violation and burnout.
Typical antecedents of burnout include factors such as lack of social support,
lack of feedback, lack of participation in decision making, lack of organizational
trust, lack of mutual working relationships, and work or role overload (Brookings,
Bolton, Brown, & McEvoy, 1985; Caplan, 1974; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cordes
& Dougherty, 1993; Fimian & Blanton, 1987; Laschinger, Shamian, & Thomson,
2001; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Schwab &
Iwanicki, 1982). When examined as an antecedent, burnout has been commonly
linked to absenteeism (Iverson, Olekans, & Erwin, 1998) and turnover (Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998). Maslach et al. (2001) highlighted a growing attention to the
role of context in influencing burnout. They specifically mentioned psychological
contracts, the violation of which can act as a stressor for the individual, because
it disrupts norms of reciprocity and increases gaps between individuals and their
environments.
Moreover, psychological contract has been referred by a number of authors
as employees’ individualistic understanding and assessment of their employment
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 493

deal (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). The research literature
on psychological contract suggests that there is value in studying the distinct
elements of the psychological contract (e.g., transactional and relational types)
separately (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Raja et al., 2004). The distinction
between transactional and relational contract type has important implications not
only for employees’ perception that their psychological contract has been breached
but also for the way in which employees react to this perception (Robinson, Kraatz,
& Rousseau, 1994; Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
Lambert, Edwards, and Cable (2003) suggested that the concept of psycho-
logical contract breach requires theoretical and empirical expansion. They further
argued that employee reactions to the breach of a psychological contract may differ
for transactional and relational contract types. In addition, Hui, Lee, and Rousseau
(2004) suggested that research examining the influence of different contract forms
on employee responses is limited. The handful of studies that have explored these
relationships have done so by comparing findings across samples from North
America and other countries. For example, Lee, Pillutla, and Law (2000) found
a stronger relationship between relational contract type and employee behavior
in Hong Kong compared to the United States. While the moderating influence
of the type of psychological contract on associations between perceived breach,
felt violation, and burnout remain to be examined, another gap in the psycho-
logical contract literature is its focus on North American and European samples.
As cognitive and motivational schemas play an important role in shaping one’s
psychological contract and resulting outcomes (Thomas, Au, & Ravlin, 2003),
the context within which this and related constructs are examined is of utmost
relevance.
Although Rousseau and Schalk (2000) called for the need to examine psycho-
logical contracts in non-western contexts, Dulac et al. (2008) noted that empirical
examinations on the topic have failed to pay adequate attention to the broader
context. Consistent with other efforts such as Raja, Johns, and Bilgrami’s (2011)
examination of interactive effects of felt violation and personality on outcomes in
Pakistan, Restubog, Bordia, and Tang’s (2007) examination of perceived breach in
a Philippine sample of employees, and Kickul, Lester, and Belgio’s (2004) cross-
cultural comparison of perceived breach and intrinsic/extrinsic outcomes across
North American and Hong Kong Chinese samples, the present study examines
psychological contracts, perceived breach, felt violation, and burnout in a sample
of employees in Pakistan. The potential moderating influence of this particular
cultural context is examined in an exploratory manner.
The examination of cultural milieu, which has remained underexplored in psy-
chological contract research because of a focus on North American samples, could
offer some insight into its potential moderating influence on this phenomenon.
For example, Rousseau (1995) suggested that shared or normative psychologi-
cal contracts can develop as a function of group membership (Rousseau, 1995).
494 The Journal of Psychology

For example, nurses have been thought to generally develop relational contracts
(e.g., Purvis & Cropley, 2003), whereas transactional contracts are often associ-
ated with casual workers (e.g., Nelson & Tonks, 2007). Consequently, contract
formation can also be influenced by group membership pertaining to national
culture.
Referring to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (2001), Pakistan scores high on
power distance (PD), masculinity (MAS) and uncertainty avoidance (UA), and
low on individualism (IDV). In other words, individuals within Pakistan are likely
to accept a high degree of power differential between authorities and subordi-
nates, and value success and achievement. Moreover, they tend to react adversely
to uncertainty, and are collectivistic in nature, exhibiting strong loyalty to one’s
in-group (e.g., family, work team). Given the phenomenon of interest in this study
(i.e., psychological contracts), the dimensions of power distance and uncertainty
avoidance bear most contextual relevance in addition to collectivism. The combi-
nation of PD and UA, for example, results in situations where leaders have ultimate
power and authority, and rules, laws and regulations are developed to reinforce
such leadership (Hofstede, 2001). Such a context can put to test the strength of
an individual’s loyalty to a target in-group. Although Hofstede’s (2001) cultural
dimensions are often discussed at the national level, he suggests that organiza-
tional members within a particular nation can be expected to have similar values.
As Rousseau and Schalk (2000) discussed, employee expectations and interpre-
tation of employment promises are derived from the societal setting in which
employment takes place. Consequently, it is possible that cultural orientation can
influence the formation of contracts.
Therefore this research study has a number of objectives. The first objective of
this study is to examine the influence of perceived psychological contract breach on
feelings of violation and burnout. The second objective of this study is to examine
the role of felt violation as a mediator between perceived psychological contract
breach and burnout. The third objective of this study is to examine the moderating
role of psychological contract types in the perceived psychological contract breach-
felt violation and felt violation-burnout relationships. The last objective of this
study is to examine in an exploratory manner the potential moderating impact of
cultural context on these relationships.

Theory and Hypotheses

Types of Psychological Contracts

Rousseau (1995) in her book classified psychological contracts into four di-
mensions: transactional, relational, balanced and transitional. While transactional
contracts are defined as short-term and rigid in nature, lacking affective associa-
tion and trust, with clearly defined time lines and having purely economic focus.
Relational contracts on the other hand incorporate socio-emotional elements such
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 495

as loyalty and support in an exchange for security or growth in an organization

resulting in an open-ended long lasting relationship with the organization (Morri-
son & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean-Parks, 1993; Rousseau, 1995; Shore
& Tetrick, 1994).
Balanced contract is a combination of the transactional and relational contract
type where it takes the feature of performance-reward contingencies from transac-
tional contracts and open-ended arrangements from relational contracts (Rousseau,
1995). Transitional arrangements refers to the deficiency of an agreement between
the parties, which can arise from unstable circumstances for instance drastic or-
ganizational changes like downsizing can result into lack of commitment or no
commitment at all between the parties (Rousseau, 1995). Due to measurement
issues and the significant overlap between the transactional and transitional types
and relational and balanced types, only relational and transactional contract types
have been operationalized and tested in mainstream research. To the best of our
knowledge, no study has examined all four types or the transitional or balanced
types alone. Therefore, we will focus on the relational and transactional types to
avoid confounding of types and measurement problems.
Given the sample (i.e., Pakistani employees) and cultural dimensions un-
der consideration, we explore the likelihood of developing transactional versus
relational contracts. Employees endorsing a more transactional focus with their
employer are thought to have a transactional contract type (i.e., score high on the
transactional contract dimension), whereas those acknowledging a greater rela-
tional focus are said to have a relational contract type with their employer (i.e.,
score higher on the relational psychological contract dimension). Given the defi-
nition of these two contract types, the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance
is of most relevance, although collectivism could also play a role. A high uncer-
tainty avoidance orientation is associated with a lack of tolerance for uncertainty
or ambiguity, and a discomfort in unstructured situations. Consequently, such an
orientation should result in a preference for transactional contracts which typi-
cally have well-specified performance terms, definite duties and responsibilities,
and a short-term focus. However, Hofstede (1991) clarifies that it is the unknown
that poses a threat for the uncertainty avoidant, suggesting that such individuals
would rather prefer exchanges that last over a longer-term, providing them with
the stability they often desire. High uncertainty avoidants are also more emotion-
ally expressive (Hofstede, 2001), supporting their likelihood of forming relational
contracts which are socio-emotive in nature. Although Hui et al. (2004) found no
difference in scores on transactional and relational contract type in a sample of
employees in China (also a collectivistic society), there is theoretical reason to ar-
gue that being collectivistic in orientation toward their in-group, such individuals
are likely to be concerned with the welfare of the group at the expense of their
personal interests or gain (Thomas et al., 2003). They are more likely to emphasize
harmony in relationships with in-group members (Yang, 1995), increasing their
likelihood of developing relational contracts. Hence, it is possible to expect the
496 The Journal of Psychology

present sample to score higher on relational contract compared to transactional

contract. Therefore we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Scores on relational contract type will be higher compared to

transactional contract type.

Psychological Contract Breach and Felt Violation

Initially, the terms breach and violation were used interchangeably in the psy-
chological contract literature where both the terms referred to perceptions of bro-
ken promise in an exchange relationship (Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson
et. al, 1994). However, Morrison and Robinson (1997) improved the definitional
clarity and distinguished between them by defining perceived breach as “a cogni-
tive assessment of contract fulfillment that is based on an employee’s perception
of what each party has promised and provided to the other” (p. 230), and felt vi-
olation as emotional suffering and feelings of anger, betrayal, injustice, mistrust,
and wrongful harm which develop from the realization that one’s organization
has failed to fulfill its obligations. Therefore, there exists a distinct conceptual
distinction between perceived breach and felt violation. While perceived breach
is more realized and calculative in nature, felt violation is an emotional reaction
to realization of breach suggesting a sequence from breach to violation. Morrison
and Robinson (1997) argued that the degree to which perceived breach devel-
ops into felt violation is dependent on an interpretation process where employees
cognitively evaluate the realized breach as well as why the situation occurred
and through this process attach significance to the event (Wong & Weiner, 1981).
Consistent with a number of studies that have reported that perceived breach and
felt violation are distinct constructs and there exists a positive association be-
tween perceived breach and felt violation (Conway & Briner, 2002; Raja et al.,
2004; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007),
we expect:

Hypothesis 2: Perceived psychological contract breach will have a positive asso-

ciation with feelings of violation.

Psychological Contract Breach, Felt Violation, and Job Burnout

Social exchange theory helps in explaining the damaging effects of psycholog-
ical contract breach on employee attitudes and behaviors (Aselage & Eisenberger,
2003; Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau,
1995; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003; Zhao et al., 2007). According
to this theory the employee-employer relationship is governed by the rules of so-
cial exchange, where the parties in an exchange relationship provide tangible and
intangible benefits to one another, for example money or socio-emotional support
respectively (Blau, 1964).
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 497

The norm of reciprocity results in the exchange of these benefits, which sug-
gests that individuals in an exchange relationship are obligated to return favors
that have been provided by others in the path of exchanges with the purpose of
strengthening interpersonal relationships (Gouldner, 1960). Psychological con-
tract breach takes place when an employee fulfills his or her obligations but does
not receive expected outcomes from the organization in return (Morrison & Robin-
son, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). These discrepancies characterize a disparity in the
social exchange relationship between the employee and employer (Suazo, 2009;
Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995).
Furthermore, from the perspective of equity theory (Adams, 1965), an em-
ployee is motivated to re-establish equilibrium in the social exchange relationship
by various means including negative attitudes and behaviors. Employees can re-
spond to this state of imbalance by either altering their own or organization’s
obligations (Robinson et al., 1994). Whenever employees perceive a breach of
psychological contract by the organization, employees lose trust in the organiza-
tion and feel that they have been deceived and mistreated by the organization,
which in turn causes employees to be less motivated and to behave in ways that is
not in the best interest of the organization (e.g., Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006;
Rousseau, 1989, 1995; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Zhao et al.,
2007).
Therefore, in accordance with the predictions of social exchange theory and
equity theory, the empirical research on the outcomes of psychological contract
breach has revealed a negative relationship between psychological contract breach
and a variety of workplace attitudes and behavior (Suazo, 2009).When employees
perceive a breach in their psychological contract, it decreases their perceptions
of predictability and control (Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987).
These in turn are important to the maintenance of well-being. For example, Con-
way and Briner (2002) found that broken promises had a strong relationship with
negative emotional reactions such as depression and anxiety. As a result, this lack
of predictability and control may cause employees to experience stress and strain
(Maslach et al., 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Sutton, 1990). Moreover, Gakovic
and Tetrick (2003) reported that the fulfillment of organizational obligations was
a significant predictor of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. Consistent
with mainstream research, we suggest that perceived breach of the psychological
contract is likely to generate burnout, because it destroys the belief of reciprocity
which is critical for maintaining the well-being of employees (Maslach et al.,
2001).

Hypothesis 3: Perceived psychological contract breach will be positively related

to job burnout.

Psychological contract violation is thought of as a process, which may trans-

form the perception of psychological contract breach into negative workplace
498 The Journal of Psychology

attitudes and behaviors (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-
Dalton, 2005). According to the affective events theory which explains the role
of felt violation as a mediator (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Zhao et al., 2007),
employees’ experiences at work lead to affective reactions which in turn influ-
ence attitudes and behavior. Therefore, violation “represents a mental state of
readiness for action” (Morrison & Robinson, 1997, p. 231). Furthermore, Zajonc
(1998) suggested that cognitions and emotions shape and are shaped by each
other.
The cognitive-motivational relational theory of emotion by Lazarus’s (1991a,
1991b) further supports the speculation that violation will mediate the relationship
between perceived psychological contract breach and employee affective and
attitude-based reactions. The importance of this theory lies in its two-step process
where cognition is followed by emotion. The first step is known as “cognitive
appraisal” where an individual goes through an assessment process to evaluate
the importance of events for their own well-being. The second-step “emotional
response” is dependent upon the first-step cognitive appraisal, which according
to Lazarus (1991a) is a critical step as emotions cannot occur without a thorough
process preceding them.
Dulac et al. (2008) extended this theory in the perspective of the psychological
contracts and suggested that perceived psychological contract breach takes place
when an employee cognitively evaluates that his or her organization has failed
to fulfill its promises and how the employee comprehend that breach in terms of
his or her own well-being lead to the feelings of violation. Moreover they argued
that when an individual evaluates the behavior of others, it will influence their
affective responses towards that behavior, thereby influencing their consequent
attitudes toward the other (Dulac et al., 2008).
Many studies have shown that feelings of violation act as a mediator in the
relationship between perceived breach and job attitudes and behaviors (Bordia,
Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Dulac et al., 2008; Raja et al., 2004; Suazo et al., 2005;
Suazo, 2009; Zhao et al., 2007). Moreover, felt violation is positively related to
many correlates of burnout such as job stress, job satisfaction and job performance
(McLean-Parks & Kidder, 1994; Raja et al., 2004; Robinson & Morrison, 1995;
Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Employees who perceive that their organization has
failed to fulfill most important obligations will experience feelings of violation,
which in turn are most likely to affect their well-being and manifest into burnout.
Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Feelings of violation will mediate the relationship between per-

ceived psychological contract breach and job burnout.

The Moderating Influence of Contract Type

The distinction between transactional and relational contract type has im-
portant implications not only for employees’ perceptions of breach of their
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 499

psychological contract, but also for the way in which the employee reacts to
this perceived breach (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson et al., 1994). Lam-
bert et al. (2003) argued that employee reactions to the breach of a psychological
contract may differ for transactional and relational contract types. We expect that
contract type would act as a moderator in the perceived breach-felt violation and
felt violation-burnout relationships.
Morrison and Robinson (1997) argued that the translation of perceived breach
into feelings of violation depends on the salience of the unfulfilled promise. It is
likely that denial of a more clearly defined economic inducement will lead to
feelings of violation as compared to breach of a less defined socio-emotional
term. As transactional contract elements have an objective, verifiable and event-
focused nature (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean-Parks, 1993;
Rousseau, 1989, 1995), employees are expected to indulge in a clear comparison
process of promised and delivered monetizable inducements (Montes & Irving,
2008). If they detect a breach of any such promised inducement, it will readily
translate into violation as they are more concerned with economic exchange in the
relationship. For example, if an employee has perceived a promise of high pay, it is
a fairly uncomplicated process to assess whether that promise was fulfilled or not
(Montes & Irving, 2008). Therefore, breach of high transactional contracts is more
likely to cause feelings of violation as compared to breach of low transactional
contracts where terms of economic exchange might not be as clear with respect to
time and rewards.
Although recent research (Raja et al., 2011) shows that employees with a
relational contract are more likely to show reduced performance, lower satisfac-
tion, and higher intentions to quit once they feel violated, we believe the opposite
would happen in case of breach to violation link. We believe that perceived breach
being more cognitive and calculative (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) is less likely
to evoke feelings of violation among those who form deep relationship with the
organization. Montes and Irving (2008) argued that since relational inducements
tend to be less concrete as compared to transactional inducements, promises may
not be the most salient referent when employees make judgments regarding re-
lational delivered inducements. Employees with a relational contract type focus
on terms that are socio-economic in nature, which provide a basis for a long term
quality relationship rather than pure economic exchange for a defined term. They
can delay gratitude and forgo material benefit over a short term for a lasting and
quality relationship (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Raja et al., 2004). Therefore, it
is expected that people with a high relational contract type will have a futuristic
relationship-oriented approach, and hence every perception of breach would not
readily translate into feelings of violation for them.

Hypothesis 5: Transactional contracts will moderate the relationship between

perceived breach and feelings of violation such that the relationship will be
stronger when scores on transactional contract is high.
500 The Journal of Psychology

Hypothesis 6: Relational contracts will moderate the relationship between per-

ceived breach and feelings of violation such that the relationship will be weaker
when scores on relational contract is high.

With respect to the moderating role of transactional contracts in the relation-

ship between feelings of violation and burnout, we argue that a high transactional
contract will strengthen the relation between feelings of violation and burnout.
Our argument stems from the finding that because those with a high transactional
contract are focused on monetizable or tangible outcomes and highly cautious
about maintaining the balance and repayment in the relationship (Morrison &
Robinson, 1997), they are less likely to develop emotional support mechanisms
in the workplace which have the potential to arrest the development of burnout.
Anger, mistrust, and feelings of betrayal arising from a realization that the orga-
nization did not fulfill one of the promises can readily translate into burnout when
no affective or emotional support is available.
On the contrary, we expect that a high relational contract would alleviate
the effects of feelings of violation on burnout, as it acts as a buffer. Despite
the finding by Raja and colleagues (2011) that violation leads to adverse effects
on performance, satisfaction, and intentions to quit, we believe that relational
contracts would act as a buffer in the felt violation-burnout relationship. Since
relational contracts are based on trust between the two parties and have a strong
focus on the quality of the employee-employer relationship (Buch & Aldridge,
1991; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989, 1995) and are governed by “norms of
non instrumental concern” (Morrison & Robinson, 1997, p. 238), norms in which
exchange partners are not as concerned with the immediacy of reciprocation. This
stronger long-term orientation would provide employees with more resource to
consume or react to instead of feeling directly burnt out.
As employees having relational contracts tend to have higher levels of satis-
faction as compared to those who form transactional contracts, these employees
have the room available to them by showing their reaction in the form of reduced
satisfaction or performance (Raja et al., 2011). Moreover, Raja and colleagues
(2011) used a bipolar scale for contract types, which can constrain the indepen-
dent buffer (or lack of) effects of each contract type on burnout. Individuals with
high relational contracts are likely to have developed social support resources
within their workplace, because of their relationship-oriented focus. Because of
their emphasis on long-term, future-oriented relationship with their organization,
they are also likely to take advantage of opportunities available to them to re-
dress the feelings of mistrust and anger arising after a realized breach. Hence, the
following associations are expected.

Hypothesis 7: Transactional contracts will moderate the relationship between

feelings of violation and burnout such that the relationship will be stronger when
transactional contract type is high.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 501

Hypothesis 8: Relational contracts will moderate the relationship between feel-

ings of violation and burnout such that the relationship will be weaker when
relational contract type is high.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

Data was collected through a field survey from various organizations in a
major city in North East region of Pakistan. In order to capture maximum breadth
in context and occurrences of perceived breach and felt violation, we decided
to collect data from many different organizations. Organizations were accessed
either through professional acquaintances or by contacting the Human Resources
department. All measures were acquired using a self-report questionnaire. English
is the medium of instruction for all high school and university level education in
Pakistan. Moreover, it is the language of official work in Pakistan. With exception
of a few entry level blue collar jobs (e.g., laborers or assembly workers), all em-
ployees working in Pakistan can communicate in English. Past research conducted
in Pakistan and published in mainstream journals (e.g., Butt & Choi, 2006; Butt,
Choi, & Jaeger, 2005; Raja et al., 2004; Raja & Johns, 2010; Raja et al., 2011) has
clearly demonstrated that use of questionnaire in English does not pose a problem.
Therefore, keeping in view our sample, we did not translate the questionnaire into
the local language.
The questionnaire contained a letter, which stated the purpose of the study and
mentioned that participation was voluntary. Moreover, it assured participants of
the strictest anonymity of all the responses obtained and no information was asked
for that could reveal the identity of the participants. A total of 450 questionnaires
were distributed, which yielded 361 useable responses, representing an excellent
response rate of 80 percent. Such high response rate is not uncommon in research
conducted in Asia. For example Chen, Tsui, and Farh (2002) reported a response
rate of 83% with self- and supervisor-reports of performance for a study conducted
in China. Raja et al. (2004) reported a response rate of 70% in Pakistan and
Suliman (2003) had a response rate of 89% for a study conducted in United
Arab Emirates (with independent measures of performance). Maybe, people in
collectivistic cultures find it more difficult to turn down a request for help in
conducting research.
The sample represented a wide variety of occupations ranging from profes-
sional engineers, technicians, accountants, telecom, information technology, hu-
man resource, finance, marketing, sales and customer service professionals. The
majority of the sample (67%) belonged to entry level and middle level manage-
rial, technical and professional positions. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents
were male, and the mean age for the sample was 33.68 (SD = 10.43) years. Al-
most 35% of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree and 65% held graduate
502 The Journal of Psychology

degrees. Respondents had average tenure with their current organization of 7.68
(SD = 9.54) years, with an average of 10.32 (SD = 9.72) years of total work
experience.
Psychological Contract Type. A 20-Item Psychological Contract Inventory
developed by Rousseau (2000) was used to measure the two psychological contract
types under investigation in this study. This measure used a 5-point Likert scale
which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) where high scores
indicated high levels of the construct in question. Containing 10 items each, the
transactional and relational contract sub-scales included items such as “provides
short-term employment” and “provides secure employment,” respectively. The
alpha reliability for this measure has ranged between .70 and .90 in past research
(e.g., Hui et al., 2004; Uen, Chien, & Yen, 2009).
Perceived Breach. A 5-item scale developed by Robinson and Morrison
(2000) was used to assess perceived psychological contract breach. This measure
obtained employees’ perceptions of how well their organization had fulfilled their
obligations on a five-point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). A sample item included “My employer has broken
many of its promises to me even though I’ve upheld my side of the deal.” Past
research has demonstrated that this instrument has adequate levels of reliability.
For example Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported reliability of .92, Raja et al.
(2004) reported .79 and Dulac et al. (2008) reported reliability of .95 for this
measure.
Feelings of Violation. A four-item scale developed by Robinson and Morrison
(2000) was used to assess feelings of violation. This measure is different from
the breach measure, also developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000). While
perceived breach has a cognitive assessment of contract fulfillment, feelings of
violation captured strong affective and emotional reaction expressed by anger,
frustration and betrayal in response to broken promises. An example of a sample
item is, “I feel betrayed by my organization.” Respondent’s feelings of violation
were measured using a 5-point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported that the 4 item
scale has good reliability and validity (i.e., α = 0.92). Similarly, the reliability of
this measure has ranged from .80 to .90 in other studies (e.g., Bordia et al., 2008;
Dulac et al., 2008; Raja et al., 2004).
Burnout. A 21-Item measure developed by Pines and Aronson (1988) was
used to assess burnout. This is a frequently used measure that gives an overall score
of burnout. Examples of items asked how often the respondent had experienced
certain states such as “being emotionally exhausted” or “can’t take it anymore”.
A seven-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = once in a while; 3 = rarely; 4 =
sometimes; 5 = often; 6 = usually; 7 = always) was used to measure the extent
to which respondents experienced burnout. Weisberg (1994) reported a reliability
of .89 for this measure.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 503

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 33.68 10.43 —

2. Tenure 7.68 9.54 .85∗∗ —
3. Transactional 2.69 .69 –.17∗∗ –.14∗ (.77)
Contract
4. Relational 3.39 .67 –.01 .07 –.10 (.82)
Contract
5. Perceived 2.69 .89 –.01 –.05 .10 –.43∗∗ (.81)
Breach
6. Felt Violation 2.37 .91 –.01 .00 .29∗∗ –.19∗∗ .41∗∗ (.84)
7. Job Burnout 2.97 .97 –.08 –.12∗ .21∗∗ –.41∗∗ .40∗∗ .38∗∗ (.92)

Note. N = 361; Cronbach’s alphas presented in parentheses.

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabil-
ities for the main variables of interest in this study. The alpha reliabilities for
all measures exceeded the .70 level. We conducted confirmatory factory analyses
comparing a forced single factor model versus an unconstrained two factor mode
for every possible pairing of constructs in our study. In every case, the uncon-
strained two factor model revealed better fit indices and lower chi-square values
providing good support for construct validity.1
The bivariate correlations among the variables were in the expected direction.
Perceived breach had a significant positive correlation with burnout (r = .40, p <
.01) and felt violation (r = .41, p < .01). Similarly, felt violation was correlated
positively with burnout (r = .38, p < .01). Transactional contract type had a
significant positive correlation with felt violation (r = .29, p < .01) and burnout
(r = .21, p < .01). Relational contract type had a significant negative correlation
with both perceived breach (r = –.43, p < .01) and felt violation (r = –.19, p <
.01) and a significant negative correlation with job burnout (r = –.41, p < .01).

Test of Hypotheses
An independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference between av-
erage scores on the transactional and relational contract sub-scale (t = –13.08,
df = 360, p < .001), with scores being higher on relational contract. The ratio of
relational contract to transactional contract scores was 1.27. In addition, estimates
504 The Journal of Psychology

TABLE 2. Summary of Results of Multiple Regressions for Main and Mediated

Effects

Dependent Variable → Felt Violation Burnout

Predictor ↓ β R2 β R2

Model 1
Step 1
Controls .06∗∗ .11∗∗
Step 2
Perceived Breach .40∗∗ .15∗∗ .37∗∗ .13∗∗
Model 2
Step 1
Controls .11∗∗
Step 2
Felt Violation .33∗∗ .10∗∗
Step 3
Perceived Breach .28∗∗ .06∗∗

Note. N = 361; Control variables include Marital Status and Organization.

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

of rwg , a measure of perceptual agreement among individuals (James, 1982; James,

Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), were .78 (transactional contract) and .88 (relational con-
tract). Given that estimates greater than .70 provide evidence for group agreement,
these findings together suggest that the average level of relational contract is not
only higher compared to that for transactional contracts, but is also more consistent
within this sample of individuals. Consequently, hypothesis 1 is supported.
We conducted multiple linear regressions to test all main effect hypotheses.
We controlled for the effects of organization type and marital status in all regression
analysis. The control variables were entered in the first step, followed by respective
predictors, mediator or moderators in the second and third steps. As shown in
Table 2, perceived breach had a significant positive relationship with felt violation
(β = .40, p < .01) and job burnout (β = .37, p < .01). In addition, felt violation
was related to burnout (β = .33, p < .01). These results confirmed hypotheses 2
and 3. The results of the mediated regression analysis (see Table 2) show that after
controlling for the effects of felt violation, perceived breach was still a significant
predictor of burnout, but there was a small reduction in the effect for perceived
breach (from β = .37, R2 = 0.13, p < .01 to β = .28, R2 = 0.06, p <
.01). These results provide evidence for partial mediation and partially confirmed
hypothesis 4.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 505

TABLE 3. Summary of Results of Moderated Regression Analyses

Dependent Variable → Felt Violation Burnout

Predictor ↓ β R2 β R2

Model 1
Step 1
Controls .06∗∗
Step 2
Perceived Breach .37∗∗
Transactional contract .23∗∗
(TC)
Relational contract –.01 .20∗∗
(RC)
Step 3
Perceived Breach × TC –.18∗∗
Perceived Breach × RC –.02 .03∗∗
Model 2
Step 1
Controls .11∗∗
Step 2
Felt Violation .19∗∗
Transactional Contract .08∗
(TC)
Relational Contract –.27∗∗ .23∗∗
(RC)
Step 3
Felt Violation × TC .08∗
Felt Violation × RC –.12∗∗ .02∗∗

Note. N = 361; Controls are Marital Status and Organization.

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

Using moderated multiple regression (MMR) analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West,

& Aiken, 2003) to test for the moderator hypotheses, all variables were centered
on their respective means. In addition, we plotted the significant interactions for
high (Mean + SD) and low (Mean − SD) values of the moderator to check the
nature and direction of relationships. Results for the moderating role of contract
type on the relationship between perceived breach and felt violation (see Table 3)
shows that although the perceived breach × transactional contract interaction was
significant (β = –.18, p < .01), the perceived breach-felt violation relationship
is not stronger for those with high transactional contracts (see Figure 1). This
finding is counter to hypothesis 5 and as a result hypothesis 5 was not confirmed.
Moreover, hypothesis 6 was not confirmed, as the perceived breach × relational
contract interaction was not significant.
506 The Journal of Psychology

FIGURE 1. Interactive effects of perceived breach and transactional contract

on felt violation.

Table 3 shows that for burnout, both the felt violation × transactional contract
term (β = .08, p < .05) and the felt violation × relational contract term (β = –.12,
p < .01) were significant. Figure 2 shows the felt violation-burnout relationship
to be stronger when transactional contract is high. Figure 3 indicates that the
felt violation-burnout relationship was weaker when relational contract was high.
These results confirmed hypothesis 7 and 8.
In exploring some of the proposed influences of cultural context, as suggested,
this sample tended to score higher on relational contract type. A positive perceived
breach-felt violation association was supported as in hypothesis 2 and the findings
were similar to reported in past research conducted in Western contexts. For
example, the obtained association between perceived breach and felt violation (r
= .41) appears to be towards the lower end of the perceived breach-felt violation
associations reported in Zhao et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis, but still within the 95%
confidence interval values (.41 and .62) reported by Zhao and colleagues.
In summary, results of the study suggested that perceived breach had a sig-
nificant positive relationship with felt violation and both were related to burnout
(confirming hypotheses 2 and 3). Feelings of violation partially mediated the
relationship between perceived breach and burnout, partially confirming hypoth-
esis 4. Although transactional contract type moderated the perceived breach-felt
violation relationship, the effect was not in hypothesized direction and hence hy-
pothesis 5 was not confirmed. Relational contract did not moderate the perceived
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 507

FIGURE 2. Interactive effects of felt violation and transactional contract on

burnout.

FIGURE 3. Interactive effects of felt violation and relational contract on

burnout.
508 The Journal of Psychology

breach-felt violation relationship. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was not confirmed.

Both transactional and relational contract types significantly moderated the felt
violation-burnout relationship in expected direction confirming hypotheses 7 and
8.

Discussion

Psychological contracts and burnout have remained significant constructs of

inquiry in the OB literature over the past two decades. Although theory in both
domains provide compelling grounds for the relationship between psychological
contract constructs such as perceived breach, felt violation and burnout, little em-
pirical attention has explored this possibility. Far fewer studies have examined
these relationships within non-Western cultural settings. In addition to confirming
some of the expected relationships (e.g., perceived breach, felt violation) in a
Pakistani context, this study examined burnout as an outcome, and the moderating
influence of psychological contracts on it. We found support for the direct and
moderating relationships concerning burnout. Our findings suggest that the rela-
tional orientation of employees can lessen the possibility of feelings of violation
turning into burnout. This again shows that relational contracts, being more sub-
jective and relationship-focused, are beneficial for the organization, as they serve
to buffer the individual against personally harmful organizational consequences
such as job burnout. In line with past research (Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Raja
et al., 2004; Suazo et al., 2005), our results indicate that perceived breach and felt
violations are conceptually and empirically independent constructs.
Feelings of violation partially mediated the relationship between perceived
breach and burnout. The findings of this study are in accordance with social
exchange theory, equity theory and the cognitive-motivational relational theory of
emotion suggesting that employee perception of a psychological contract breach is
followed by a more intense emotional reaction, which in turn affect their wellbeing
in terms of burnout. However, perceived breach in itself is also a strong predictor of
undesired outcomes. In addition, this finding is consistent with previous research
which have reported that felt violation acts as a mediator between perceived breach
and outcomes consisting of job satisfaction and intentions to leave (Dulac et al.,
2008; Raja et al., 2004; Suazo et al., 2005; Suazo, 2009; Zhao et al., 2007).
Due to the rising claims of job stress and burnout globally (Aldred, 2000; Jamal,
1999), and the potential loss of profitability and productivity associated with it,
managers should pay special attention to maintain psychological contracts of
employees to avoid harmful consequences such as burnout. Although it is not
possible to directly tackle employees psychological contracts as they tend to be
psychological and idiosyncratic in nature (Rousseau, 1995), managers can ensure
that factors that can lead to formation, breach, and violation are well handled. For
example, they should provide as much clear information as possible to employees.
Reducing subjectivity and lack of feedback will lessen the chances of perceptions
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 509

of breach or feelings of violation from occurring (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

Moreover, creating a culture that values quality relationship and puts less focus
on purely economic inducements can increase the possibility of development of
relational contracts, which in turn can have many beneficial effects for employees
as well as the organization.
The moderating influence of transactional contract type on the perceived
breach-felt violation association was not supported. Although we expected those
with high transactional contracts to have a stronger perceived breach-felt violation
relationship, we found the relationship to be weaker for this group. Relational
contract type did not moderate the perceived breach-felt violation relationship.
These findings point to the plausible influence of cultural context, particularly the
influence of high power distance. As individuals in high power distance contexts
legitimate inequality and have higher tolerance for injustices (Lee et al., 2000),
they are less likely to react negatively to perceived breach.
Furthermore, cultural influences may explain the partial mediation of viola-
tion in the perceived breach-burnout relationship. As high power distance indi-
viduals are less likely to see the organization at fault when they perceive breach,
negative reactions towards the organization (i.e., feelings of violation) are a less
likely mechanism through which emotional exhaustion comes about. Furthermore,
findings provide some support for the formation of stronger relational contracts
in this context, argued to be a result of higher uncertainty avoidance. Together,
these findings point to the need for further research into cultural influences on
the psychological contract phenomenon. There is strong theoretical reason to ex-
pect differential relationships with respect to psychological contracts in a high
uncertainty avoidance and high power distance context.
Our study is not without limitations. Self-report bias and common method
variance pose another problem. However, clear factor loadings of contract type
items and perceived breach and felt violation items, which seem most susceptible
to method bias, indicate that this was not a major problem in our data set. In addi-
tion, tests of moderator analyses support this assertion as method bias can reduce
the possibility of detecting significant interactions. However, exaggerated effects
can never be ruled out in such studies. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of
our study casts doubt of the causality of variables and caution is warranted in
interpreting the results. Although past research adequately justifies use of English
questionnaires in Pakistan, the chance that some individuals misinterpreted the
questions resulting in erroneous response can never be ruled out. Maybe, future
research should use and compare results obtained from questionnaires adminis-
tered in English as well as the local language. This would increase our confidence
in findings of research being conducted using English questionnaires in such con-
texts. The response rate of 80% was high as compared to the norms in mainstream
research conducted in western cultures. Maybe, it is the cultural manifestation of
collectivistic values which make it difficult for respondents to refuse request for
data collection. This seems plausible considering that above 70% response rates
510 The Journal of Psychology

are not uncommon in studies conducted in similar contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2002;
Raja et al., 2011; Suliman, 2003).
Despite its limitations, this examination highlights the potential influence of
cultural context on psychological contracts, by articulating the theoretical influ-
ences of cultural dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance and power distance.
Moreover, it examines both perceived breach and felt violation, the latter of which
has received much less research attention (Zhao et al.’s meta-analysis contained
only 11 studies that measured both constructs). In addition, this study exam-
ines burnout in the context of psychological contracts, broadening the job-person
paradigm within which burnout has typically been examined (Maslach et al.,
2001). Moreover, this research presents avenues for future research. In terms of
culture, the direct examination of uncertainty avoidance and power distance are
likely to provide more insight into the moderating potential of these cultural orien-
tations. In addition, future research should focus on conducting more longitudinal
studies in this domain. In particular, the relationships between perceived breach,
felt violation, and outcomes warrant further attention to determine causality.

NOTE
1.The results of factor loadings can be obtained from the first author.

AUTHOR NOTES

Amber Jamil is a lecturer at the Faculty of Management Sciences, Interna-

tional Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Her current research interests are
psychological contracts, personality, psychological capital, perceived organiza-
tional politics, leadership, job engagement, and job stressors. She has presented
her work at conferences such as Asia Academy of Management, International
Academy of Management and Business, International Society for the Systems
Sciences and World Business Congress of the International Management Devel-
opment Association. Usman Raja is an Associate Professor in the Organizational
Behavior, Human Resources, Entrepreneurship and Ethics Department in the Fac-
ulty of Business at Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada. His research
interests include personality, psychological contracts, justice, and perceived orga-
nizational politics. He has published in journals such as Academy of Management
Journal, Journal of Management, and Human Relations and presented his work
at conferences such as Academy of Management and Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada. Wendy Darr is a defense researcher at the Department of
National Defence (Canada). She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior at
the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University, Canada. Her research
interests include personality, absenteeism, personnel selection, and performance
appraisal.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 511

REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Aldred, C. (2000). Stress claims spur litigation. Business Insurance, 34, 23–25.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychologi-
cal contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–
509.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When Employees Strike Back: Inves-
tigating Mediating Mechanisms Between Psychological Contract Breach and Workplace
Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1104–1117.
Brookings, J. B., Bolton, B., Brown, C. E., & McEvoy, A. (1985). Self-reported job
burnout among female human service professionals. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
6, 143–150.
Buch, K., & Aldridge, J. (1991). O. D. under conditions of organization decline. Organi-
zation Development Journal, 9, 1–5.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of pro-
fessional employees: Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 717–741.
Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2006). The effects of cognitive appraisal and emotion on social
motive and negotiation behavior: The critical role of agency of negotiator emotion.
Human Performance, 19(4), 305–325.
Butt, A. N., Choi, J. N., & Jaeger, A. (2005). The effects of self-emotion, counterpart
emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-
level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 681–
704.
Cantisano, G. T., Dominguez, J. F. M., & Garcia, J. L. C. (2007). Social comparison and
perceived breach of psychological contract: Their effects on burnout in a multigroup
analysis. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 122–130.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on concept
development. New York: Behavioral Publications.
Chambel, M. J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2010). Breach of psychological contract and the
development of burnout and engagement: A longitudinal study among soldiers on a
peacekeeping mission. Military Psychology, 22, 110–127.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational
commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psycho-
logical contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
287–302.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A Review and an Integration of Research on
Job Burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–657.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the
lens of social exchange. In: J. A. M., Coyle-Shapiro, L. M., Shore, S. M., Taylor, & L.,
Tetrick (Eds.), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual
Perspectives (pp. 5–28). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
512 The Journal of Psychology

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract

for the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies,
37, 903–930.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psy-
chological contract breach: A study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 166–175.
DelCampo, R. (2007). Psychological contract violation: An individual difference perspec-
tive. International Journal of Management, 24, 43–52.
Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all re-
sponses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological
contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1079–1098.
Fimian, M. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1987). Stress, burnout, and role problems among teacher
trainees and first-year teachers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 157–165.
Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain
for employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 235–246.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Maidenhead, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and Organizational Cit-
izenship Behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and Instrumentality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311–321.
Iverson, R. D., Olekalns, M., & Erwin, P. J. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors,
and absenteeism: A causal model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 52, 1–23.
Jamal, M. (1999). Job stress and employee well-being: A cross cultural empirical study.
Stress Medicine, 15, 153–158.
Jamal, M., & Baba, V. (2000). Job stress & burnout among Canadian managers & nurses:
an empirical examination. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 454–458.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Kanner, A. D., Kafry, D., & Pines, A. (1978). Conspicuous in its absence: The lack of
positive conditions as a source of stress. Journal of Human Stress, 4(4), 33–39.
Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Belgio, E. (2004). Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of
psychological contract breach: A cross cultural comparison of the United States and
Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management, 4, 229–
252.
Lambert, L. S., Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Breach and fulfillment of the
psychological contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel
Psychology, 56, 895–934.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Shamian, J., & Thomson, D. (2001). Impact of magnet hospital char-
acteristics on nurses’ perceptions of trust burnout quality of care and work satisfaction.
Nursing Economics, 19, 209–219.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991a). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46,
352–367.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991b). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.
American Psychologist, 48, 819–834.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 513

Lee, C., Pillutla, M., Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender, and organizational justice.
Journal of Management, 26, 685–704.
Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not see-
ing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attribu-
tions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39–
56.
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multi-dimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C.
Maslach, C. & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory
and research (pp. 19–32). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. In S. Oskamp
(Ed.), Applied social psychology annual: Applications in organizational settings (Vol. 5,
pp. 133–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review Psy-
chology, 52, 397–422.
McLean-Parks, J., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Till death us do part . . . : Changing work relation-
ships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior (pp. 112–133). New York: Wiley.
Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the Effects of Promised and Delivered
Inducements: Relational and Transactional Contract Elements and the Mediating Role
of Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1367–1381.
Morrison, E. W. & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of
how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22,
226–256.
Nelson, L., & Tonks, G. (2007). Violations of the psychological contract: Experiences of a
group of casual workers. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15,
22–36.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career Burnout: Causes and Cures. New York: The Free
Press.
Purvis, L. J., & Cropley, M. (2003). The psychological contracts of National Health Service
nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 107–120.
Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-
role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 981–
1005.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Bilgrami, S. (2011). Negative consequences of felt violations: The
deeper the relationship, the stronger the reaction. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 60, 397–420.
Raja, U., Johns, G. & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The Impact of Personality on Psychological
Contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioural outcomes of psychological
contract breach in a non-western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British
Journal of Management, 18, 376–386.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574–599.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect
of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
16, 289–298.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
525–546.
514 The Journal of Psychology

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and
the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
137–152.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Rosen, C. C., Chang, C., Johnson, R. E., & Levy, P. E. (2009). Perceptions of the organi-
zational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (2), 202–217.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Psychological contract inventory: Technical report (Tech. Rep.
No. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise, and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
511–541.
Rousseau, D. M., & McLean-Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organiza-
tions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–43.
Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological Contracts in Employment: Cross-
national Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher
burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 60–74.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory frame-
work in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends
in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91–109). New York, NY: Wiley.
Suazo, M. M. (2009). The mediating role of psychological contract violation on the relations
between psychological contract breach and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 24, 136–160.
Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H. & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2005). The role of perceived viola-
tion in determining employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 24–36.
Suliman, A. M. (2003). Self and supervisor ratings of performance. Evidence from an
individualistic culture. Employee Relations, 25, 371–388.
Sutton, R. I. (1990). Organizational decline process: A social psychological perspective.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 205–253.
Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as mod-
erators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological
wellbeing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538–543.
Thomas, D. C., Au, K., & Ravlin, E. C. (2003). Cultural variation and the psychological
contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 451–471.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact
of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187–212.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate
restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37, 71–83.
Uen, J., Chien, M. S., & Yen, Y. (2009). The Mediating Effects of Psychological Contracts
on the Relationship Between Human Resource Systems and Role Behaviors: A Multilevel
Analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 215–223.
Weisberg, J. (1994). Measuring Workers’ Burnout and Intention to Leave. International
Journal of Manpower, 15(1), 4–14.
 Jamil, Raja, & Darr 515

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of
attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 650–663.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486–493.
Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S.
Tseng, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19–39). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 591–632). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological
contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60,
647–680.

Original manuscript received December 1, 2011

Final version accepted July 28, 2012